I was reasonable to ask to WFH in early days of COVID, says fired engineer

His former employer cannot "seriously" claim that he was unable to perform his job remotely when it fired him for refusing to work in person during the onset of COVID-19 in 2020, an engineer told a judge last week. Yiyu Lin, a senior project engineer carrying out technical execution of projects in the design and manufacture of …

[Antron Argaiv]

Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

I started working from home in March 2021, before places started to shut down. I just didn't dare use public transportation any more. This man's fears are (and were) perfectly reasonable, and I hope he wins his case. His employer is going to have a hard time if they let three other engineers work from home, while forcing him to come in (unless there's valid reason he was needed on site). Most companies, mine included, were very tolerant of older workers' fears, and requests to WFH.

It's hard to remember how frightened we older folks were, before the vaccines, but I spent most of the next two years at home. Fully vaccinated now, but still wear an N95 on busses and aircraft, and avoid concentrations of people in enclosed spaces. Wouldn't think of going to the grocery store without a mask on.

[Lazlo Woodbine]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

I had a colleague who work from home from the middle of February 2020 for health reasons and still hasn't returned to the office.

We boxed-up all the contents of his desk and put it in storage. There's every change he's written some AI type script to do his job and he's now in the Bahamas. If that's the case I say fair play fella.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

One company was asking workers to show up to stand up with a current issue of a local newspaper (so difficult to get to Bahamas on time) and then they had to get their laptop and point camera to the power sockets in their room and then take a peek through the window.

Also look up, down, left, right while holding a print out of someone's face next to theirs.

It's impossible to fake that with the current AI.

[My-Handle]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

I would say I'm surprised, but I have fairly low expectations on how low some companies will go.

I think I'd have a tough time doing most of those even here at home. My power sockets are under desks and generally covered. The nearest shop to me is three miles away and would require ten or twenty minutes of driving to get hold of a current newspaper, and would defeat most of the point of working from home. Lastly, I have a stubborn streak in me a mile wide and I hate being made to waste time just to satisfy someone's dictatorial streak.

Fortunately, the last couple of companies I've worked for have had a general policy of "If the work's getting done, we don't care where you do it from" (with a few sensible caveats, of course).

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

I heard it was not every stand up. They got notified just before COB day before and as far as I know it happened only once and there was a push back.

I think that happened once company found one employee was working from Tenerife and they had a strict work only from the UK policy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

There are data security and tax issues to consider. The company I worked for said that when people were WFH, Home could be anywhere in the country, but not abroad.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

"a current issue of a local newspaper"

So going out to buy a newspaper was an "essential need" in this case? Who buys newspapers these days anyway? I've not bought one in many years and never had enough loyalty to have one delivered. That'd be me out of a job if I worked for that manager, who was clearly one of those with a desperate need to see "bums on seats".

[MachDiamond]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

"One company was asking workers to show up to stand up with a current issue of a local newspaper"

Newspaper? What's that?

I'd not put up with that nonsense and likely run my mouth, but I might also say that I'm working from a desktop computer with the camera built into a monitor that's fixed to the wall or a bracket that would be difficult to reposition very much.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

but still wear an N95

Oh that triggers some nostalgia. Remember spending evenings trying to learn Symbian. Such a nice system, shame it has failed.

[mattaw2001]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

Unless you tried to use one of its gimped implementations forced by the carriers of course.

I still remember the eternal feud between the carriers & Nokia, e.g. debating whether being able to view .jpeg pictures should be possible on a business handset, as that was an entertainment feature.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

I suspect his employment contract gives the normal level of complete control to the employer: WfH is at their discretion unless (in this case state or federal law stipulate otherwise). American employment contracts frequently include clauses (non-compete, attire, ban on smoking, etc.) that would be considerous onerous in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, recent Supreme Court decisions have strengthened the hand of religious employers over things like paying for contraception.

Companies who let employees work remotely must ensure that the necessary data security and personal safety regulations can be complied with in their chosen location. That might not be relevant here but shouldn't be dismissed as employers have a duty of care towards their employers.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

"Companies who let employees work remotely must ensure that the necessary data security and personal safety regulations can be complied with in their chosen location. That might not be relevant here but shouldn't be dismissed as employers have a duty of care towards their employers."

A "duty of care" in what way? I'd argue that the health and safety of somebody working from home is the employee's responsibility. Some positions could require handling of sensitive data that can't be disseminated even via a VPN so any employee in one of those jobs would need to be present at a workplace and it would then be the employer's duty to adhere to H&S regulations.

Regulations will need to catch up with the real world once again. For tax purposes, a worker may need to be treated as an employee, but for H&S they might need to be treated as an independent contractor providing their own work area. Right now, there may not be a way to consider those things separately. If I'm working from home, I would not allow my employer to conduct an on-site H&S inspection. I don't even allow that now and I'm self-employed.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

I'd argue that the health and safety of somebody working from home is the employee's responsibility.

You can argue that, but it many cases it's most definitely the employer's legal responsibility. This is why, in many countries, any "mandates" to work from home we couched as "offers to employees where possible" to avoid transferring liability to the state. Any company that processes data for other companies will also be contractually obliged to ensure that data accessed remotely is secure. Such contracts usually include the right for onsight inspections…

For tax purposes, a worker may need to be treated as an employee, but for H&S they might need to be treated as an independent contractor providing their own work area.

I'm sure a lot of companies would love to be able to do this but I can't see the courts agreeing as recent verdicts over Uber, et al. suggest.

[notyetanotherid]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

> You can argue that, but it many cases it's most definitely the employer's legal responsibility.

Indeed ... also the 'commute' from bed to desk: https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/10/bed_to_desk_workplace_accident

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

"I'd argue that the health and safety of somebody working from home is the employee's responsibility."

Feel free to argue that. If the person you're arguing in front of is a judge, you may meet with limited success. ;)

[MachDiamond]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

"Most companies, mine included, were very tolerant of older workers' fears, and requests to WFH."

With a family member in a high-risk category, it was more incumbent on the company to make accommodations.

[FlamingDeath]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

No offense bud, but where you saw Covid19, I saw Carbon19

The whole event was a sham, and before you jump down my throat, no, I am not anti-vaccination, but I am anti-slapdash and anti-gubbermint-cretins-looking-to-steal-from-the-public-purse

[gandalfcn]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

No offense bud, but you need help.

"The whole event was a sham", You need help

[Antron Argaiv]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

I trust you don't believe there wasn't (isn't) a pandemic? (oh, and it was 2020, not 2021...how time flies!)

My approach, and you have the right to develop your own, was to do everything I could to insure my survival. Remember, in the early days of COVID, we weren't sure what one's chances of survival were, if you got it. So, I minimised my exposure to the virus by staying home, minimised my chance of getting the virus if exposed, by wearing the best mask I could find, and minimised my time spent in areas where I would be likely to be exposed. When I did have to go into work, I went in my own car, and on weekends and evenings when few were there.

I do things differently today, but I still have in my mind an equation of risk, which takes into account the percentage of the population carrying the virus, and the likelihood of exposure, and take appropriate precautions. I'm pushing 70, so all the data indicates that if I'm exposed, I'm at more risk of a bad outcome than a healthy 25 year old.

Do I think I overreacted? No. Wearing a mask and changing my habits are small inconveniences with which I'll happily put up, for a chance to live longer.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

Overreacted? Maybe. You certainly acted from a position of privilege and sound appropriately smug.

Any epidemiologist will tell how quickly viruses adapt.

[EricB123]

Re: Massachusetts in the early days of COVID

What kind of human would downvote this post? Somebody who wants to make America great again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The CEO prayer email! Wow. just wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing thing is, these are the devil's words, by my reading.

(TL;DR: The religion/Christianity haters should take away this one simple point: many Christians/religious have very little idea what the religion teaches - they're inconsistent at best due to their ignorance of the substance)

Take a look at Matthew 4:7 as one example of mentions of the same scene. (see 'Context' on the right)

The tempter is saying "do any damn thing you like cuz God is going to save you - you can force God to do anything you like" ! Sounds like the CEO, yes? Sounds like far far too many people.

Religion, politics, economics, social dynamics, driving... far too many people seem to never have read the instructions, only given them a glance.

[Ken Hagan]

To be fair, if I was making up a religion, I'd probably insert a "don't test any of this" clause, too.

[MachDiamond]

"The CEO prayer email! Wow. just wow."

This would be a CEO in name only that heads up a company with no legal department. If they had legal advice, they'd never send out anything in writing with regards to politics, religion or sexual orientation. Those fields are wall to wall landmines when brought before a judge. If you happen to work in politics, there are differences and the same goes for somebody employed by a church or advocacy group. It still wouldn't mean that an employee can require employees to vote for specific candidates in an election, but they might be able to advocate a bit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Essential industry

We make movie distribution software and we were a "vital industry (technical and research)" according to our state regulations and allowed to stay open.

[Azamino]

Re: Essential industry

My shop issued me with a letter confirming my essential status, just in case I was ever stopped whilst travelling to the office. I don't know how official it was but I only ever produced it once, during my annual pay review in 2021.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Essential industry

I had one of those too. Never got stopped while travelling, but had to produce it at hotels, despite the fact it was a corporate booking and they had already accepted the booking. <shrug>

[MachDiamond]

Re: Essential industry

"I had one of those too. Never got stopped while travelling, but had to produce it at hotels, despite the fact it was a corporate booking and they had already accepted the booking. <shrug>"

I made up my own materials and practiced a cover story. I didn't have good backup, but it would have taken a copper with nothing better to do than research it all to find me out. My work already had me working on my own nearly all of the time anyway so I wasn't face to face with very many people in the course of a week and not at close distances at all.

[xyz123]

basically the guy was fired for refusing to come to work to "pray away the Asia", by various religious groups.

This should be millions of dollars as an example to other scum companies/religious nutballs who are willing to risk employee health for their own goals.

[Oddlegs]

I'm torn on this one. It's easy with hindsight to say that of course covid was a serious risk to certain groups and so forcing those people to come into an office was unreasonable. We also now know that remote working can work extremely well in certain industries. Back in March 2020 though it still wasn't clear that covid was a risk to any but the most elderly and vulnerable. Remote working en masse was also completely untested. Given all that I think the company's decision to sack the guy in early 2020 has to be considered based on what we knew at the time. Could the employer have been more considerate of his wishes - almost certainly; was not doing so illegal - maybe not. If the employer allowed others in the same position to WFH then denying this guy was wrong but we don't know if the requests were identical and the employer had already allowed him to WFH for the previous two weeks.

All of the nonsense around religious-themed emails is just that. It's not an employer's place to send such messages but it clearly didn't bother the complainant that much until he came to be sacked.

[nintendoeats]

I think that last comment is a dangerous precedent. We all know that it takes a lot of activation energy to raise these issues, since there is so much risk of personal loss. While I probably would have quit after seeing that kind of thing (and let HR know why), I also understand why somebody would just grin and bear it. But if he has already paid the cost of being fired, might as well hold the company to account.

[JoeCool]

I'm not torn at all

The employer is placing unreasonable burdens on the employee, without any evidence of necessity. (That's the thumbs down).

Your last sentence is supposition on your part. You have no idea how he felt about it at the time, and so what ?

His immediate reaction is immaterial. The far more important question is what it says about his employer's decision making. Sometimes you do need two points to draw a conclusion.

[doublelayer]

Re: I'm not torn at all

"The employer is placing unreasonable burdens on the employee, without any evidence of necessity."

From the limited details in the article, all of which comes from this guy's side of the argument, we don't have enough information to know whether they had necessity or not. In March of 2020, the danger level of the disease was less well-understood, and plenty of places thought that it was less dangerous than it turned out to be. Making a bad call in March with basically no data to go on is a lot more reasonable than making the same decision in August when things had become clearer.

I have no idea what the situation is, and therefore I can't decide who has the better argument. For example, there are people who can't do their job either at all or well outside the workplace, for example if it requires physically accessing certain equipment or facilities. I don't know if his job had such requirements. Whether it did or not is very important in determining whether the request was reasonable. I don't find it hard to believe that an employer would say WFH was impractical when it wasn't to get rid of someone they didn't like, and I wouldn't find it hard to believe that someone would ask for WFH when it actually was incompatible with their position, but only one of them can be true about this job. Do you have sufficient evidence to indicate which one it is, or are you just picking the one that seems more likely and assuming it must be true?

[Mark 85]

This doesn't look good for him.

The article doesn't mention it, but Massachusetts is an "at will state". This means basically anyone at anytime can be fired.

There's a longer explanation here: https://bdjobstoday.org/faq/what-does-at-will-employment-mean-in-massachusetts/ Or Google away as I just grabbed an article.

[eldakka]

Re: This doesn't look good for him.

The article doesn't mention it, but Massachusetts is an "at will state". This means basically anyone at anytime can be fired.

The latter is not true.

One cannot be fired contrary to law, such as racial/gender/disability/religous discrimination reasons. Which is why the plaintiff is accusing the company of many of those things as the basis for his firing.

[Gene Cash]

it still wasn't clear that covid was a risk to any but the most elderly and vulnerable

But he's in both buckets, being old and Asian, as per the article.

[anonymous boring coward]

"Back in March 2020 though it still wasn't clear that covid was a risk to any but the most elderly and vulnerable. "

What bollocks.

It was plain and clear to anyone with a brain what was going on.

[Binraider]

There are times when I hate working for an anonymous corp, but I have to admit their COVID response and shift to WFH was well ahead of the curve.

We still haven't returned to the office full time, nor are we likely to do so. The only people losing out really are new starters to the business who have a much harder time of getting involved and so we do need to find some sort of balance on that front. That and the oil companies losing out on their £100/week as commuting has dropped off.

[MJI]

Clean them out

Nasty disease.

I have had it, basically did not know as 4x jabbed.

But the changes to it got through and I am now suffering, not with covid, but the after effects.

No idea when I can return to work full time WFH.

Managed 3 hours today though!

[Anonymous Coward]

Covid After Effects

I'm also struggling having had Covid over Christmas and New Year, a rare evening out found us beside a woman who coughed all the way through the orchestral performance we had been out to see left me infected. My wife caught it too but she had a milder experience this time after a very bad infection last year. I'm self employed so don't take sick leave unless its necessary, Whilst I'm now Covid clear I'm struggling to even walk the dogs on top of work. I've been prescribed steroids for a different ailment and the days I take them the Covid effects seem lower and I'm actually getting a few minor jobs done on my cars. I'm a petrol head and had bought various bits for Christmas which needed fitting, they would usually be on the car by New Year but I have just not had the energy do anything until last week. I'm also 4X jabbed by the way, I hate to think how ill I would have been without the vaccine, I did have one long scary night where I struggled to get enough air through my lungs.

[darklord]

Re: Covid After Effects

Me too. came down xmas eve and spent 11 days basicallt crashed out asleep. Felt pretty awful and im still tiring easily. though trying to get back to normal.

I avoided the Vid for 2 years despite being higher risk. yes it happened and yes my Employer so far has been very proactive regarding safety measures even today.

I knew we should never have gone full open plan 15 years ago, we aren't any more with our little plastic cubicles a lot quieter in the office now thankfully.

But i primarily am lucky i can work from home other than meetings which are few. Ill take the cost of heat and light at home over the cost of fuel and commute time thanks.

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: Covid After Effects

"a rare evening out found us beside a woman who coughed all the way through the orchestral performance"

It's incomprehensible. We have Covid going around, and STILL people mix while they have coughs. Selfish and stupid.

[RyokuMas]

Culturally dead...

I joined my current role about two years before covid hit. One of the key appeals to me was the vibrant culture of the business - pretty much everyone was friendly and had time for each other, the managers were on a level with and worked hand-in-glove with those they managed, and there was a decent level of sociability attached to the workplace.

These days, I feel like a contractor - just sitting at my desk, mindlessly hitting keys, all conversation strictly work-related and to a schedule. The few social events that have taken place since lockdown was lifted have seen almost no attendance by those who started with the company during covid, and it it feels like an almost weeky occurence that another longer-established team member leaves.

That amazing culture that made me feel that my company was great to work for - gone. Such a shame.

[Orv]

Re: Culturally dead...

I always seem to be the person who's immediately ostracized from the dominant workplace clique, so I can't say I've missed that part as much. I do sort of resent the way everyone else has gotten to persist in hybrid remote roles while I've been told I need to come in every day "in case someone needs you."

[Potemkine!]

In my socialist hellhole, the Law says that a wage slave is right to refuse to work in a dangerous situation. It even says the company is responsible for the workers' health.

[Scott 26]

In my South Pacific Utopia, we have similar workplace safety laws. And I know my company knows that because I have just done my annual mandatory "compliance module" training, and H&S was one of them.

[Updraft102]

It may have been reasonable to ask, but if the answer is no, you can't just pretend that it was 'yes' and go on as if it was.

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point (even in America)

Even US courts must, eventually, understand that risking your Life has to be more important than looking after a company. Whatever contract they got you to sign.

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: At some point (even in America)

"not risking your life", surely?